Was Brickyard relocated in the past 20-ish years? I have a chart that shows the Saugus Branch, when connected, entered the No 2 track between the crossovers. This wouldn't be possible today.

Also, another chart I have shows a Salem control point at the entrance to the tunnel at Salem Station. Is this a westbound/inbound control point signal only? Was Salem once a full interlocking (eastbound signal, too) when the Danvers Branch still had track out of the tunnel?

Where the Saugus Branch connected to the ER mainline was known as West Lynn. Whenthe ER got rebuilt, Brickyard Interlocking was established.

As for Salem, prior to the establishment of "McNall Interlocking", the interlocking didinclude a power switch for the wye to the Danvers Branch. The current westbound signalat the east end of the tunnel at Salem is essentially a repeater for McNall.

GP40MC1118 wrote:Where the Saugus Branch connected to the ER mainline was known as West Lynn. Whenthe ER got rebuilt, Brickyard Interlocking was established.

When was this about? I assume that is when it was converted from Rule 251 (unidirectional signaling, for those who don't know) to Rule 261 (bidirectional signaling) territory?

GP40MC1118 wrote:As for Salem, prior to the establishment of "McNall Interlocking", the interlocking didinclude a power switch for the wye to the Danvers Branch. The current westbound signalat the east end of the tunnel at Salem is essentially a repeater for McNall.

Prior to McNall, did Salem encompass the entire tunnel (from the McNall switch to the Salem switch)? And by repeater, do you mean it does not show the condition of the track in between Salem and McNall?

AFAIK the current tunnel has never had gauntlet track. The west end of the single track was inside the tunnel portal at the 1958 station. The east end was at Northey Point interlocking. Between them were 1) the Danvers Branch power turnout, 2) at least one hand-throw turnout into Parker Bros. (now condos opposite the current station) and 3) the power turnout to the other leg of the Danvers Branch wye. This was not an environment in which a gauntlet track would save any money; I believe it was CTC-controlled from Salem Tower from the beginning of construction till that tower was closed.

The older tunnel did not have gauntlet track as of 1939 (my earliest B&M ETT) and it does not appear in any photos I've seen of trains entering or leaving the east end of the stone station. Of course, I haven't seen all possible photos, but specific photos I can recall show it wasn't present about 1890, or 1910, or 1930. The undated but apparently post-1923 "Old Eastern" track chart available from Scott Whitney shows two lines through the tunnel but there's no annotation; I think the definitive answer will come from someone with a more complete ETT collection.

I have noticed that during some of the highest tides the water level is easily less than a foot from overtopping the tracks. All the marsh grass is under water and when looking out the window of the train it looks like you are in the middle of a lake. I can easily see this becoming a issue during possible storm surges or perhaps a king tide. Though I have never seen a alert stating anything about flooding.

Has this portion of the line ever experienced service disruptions due to flooding?

And with rising sea levels, are they any plans to raise the track bed to prepare for higher water levels 50 or 100 years out?

Can't recall the marshes flooding in the 20 years I've been living in Greater Boston. It's well-protected from storm surge by Nahant, eliminating the biggest risk. Springtime rains and snowmelt aren't really enough for causing problems from the inland side. The drainage is poor because of the decades of silt buildup, and the whole river could really use a dredging to improve the ecosystem in Rumney Marsh as the curtailed flow starves the river of oxygen. But it's a least concern for nearby structures because the brunt of it gets absorbed by the empty conservation land.

Salem, on the other hand, gets a North River inundation that turns the rail tunnel into a storm drain about once per decade. East-west from downtown Salem to downtown Peabody has notorious flooding problems affecting both rail lines and intersecting thoroughfares, severe risk of a really bad 50-year flooding event from an ocean storm causing big damage, and lots of previously accrued damage (e.g. lots of problems with sinkholes on local streets from washed-out substrate) that needs a major infrastructure renewal investment. Mouth of North River faces northeast into open ocean with nothing blocking it. And like Saugus River it is similarly silt-choked with poor drainage and is overdue for a dredging, making it handle rainwater drainage very poorly. Unlike Saugus River surrounded by the marsh, North River (and to lesser extent Danvers River) has urban density abutting it for its whole length. The densest parts of Salem and Peabody and all critical infrastructure therein end up unusually vulnerable for frequent minor inundations causing low-level damage through pressure and time, and risk of a 'Perfect Storm'-level event from precisely the wrong wind direction causing catastrophic damage when the silty inlets can't drain a storm surge nearly as well as they used to.

Amendment #88 to H3600Peabody-Salem Trolley StudyMr. Walsh of Peabody moves to amend the bill in section 2, in item 7008-0900, in line 4, by inserting after the word “development;” the following: “provided further, that not less than $50,000 be expended by the City of Peabody for the study of operating a high rail trolley service on the MBTA track running from Peabody Square to the Salem Depot”.

It can't be light rail, because PAR has irrevocable trackage rights federally protected from local seizure.

I'd side with extremely poorly written mangling of terminology. They probably mean a dinky, not trolley. And the act of proposing it is not to actually get a dinky running, but to light a fire under the T for the stalled CR proposal (at least to Peabody Sq.).